Thursday, January 22, 2009

What follows is a note I received from a reader (thx Scott!) about the rather shocking Sally Hawkins omission this morning from Oscar's Best Actress list. As you may or may not know, Ms. Hawkins, who is a hundred kinds of terrific in the latest Mike Leigh picture Happy-Go-Lucky, has received the most Best Actress prizes this year (she went into the double digits of precursor prizes). I think the enormity of her snub should be understood. Here's the note and statistics:

This whole Sally Hawkins debacle is totally unprecedented. In the last 34 years, since the National Society of Film Critics, The Los Angeles Film Critics Association, The New York Film Critics Circle and the Golden Globes have co-existed (kind of the big 4 non-Oscar events for me and for everyone else I'm sure), only 7 women have won all 4:

Sally Field (Norma Rae, 1979), Meryl Streep (Sophie's Choice, 1982), Michelle Pfeiffer (The Fabulous Baker Boys, 1989), Emma Thompson (Howard's End, 1992), Holly Hunter (The Piano, 1993), Helen Mirren (The Queen, 2006) and Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky, 2008). Five of them won the Oscar and the other, Pfeiffer, should have (as we all know). So for Hawkins to miss a nomination altogether, even though we knew it was a possibility (and I grant you that the 6 other women won the Golden Globe Drama so she's not a perfect comparator), is still a massively surprising and altogether unusual, not to mention unjust, outcome

First Michelle and now Sally?! It's official: Being loved by Nathaniel R. means certain doom for your Oscar prospects. Movie goddesses beware! If you hear Nathaniel's heart quicken from the wonder of your actressing run far away from him --far far away... run like the wind. He's a Cooler.

If you missed my interview with Sally Hawkins, it's here. She was so humble about this Lucky success and all of the attention. Hopefully her awards haul up until this point will mean that we'll see more of her onscreen soon. Perhaps that political biopic (The Roaring Girl) will help. The Academy likes those.

It seems being interviewed by me was a clear Oscar curse this season too. Sally, Rosemarie DeWitt, Kristin Scott Thomas, Michelle Williams and Eddie Marsan were evidently all jinxed the minute I said hello.

So even though most everybody I would assume will be picking Winslet for the win now anyway, this pattern will also hold up if that is the case. If you're a conspiracy theorist maybe it's the reason Kate was nominated in lead for The Reader and why it got nominated for Best Picture, because without those events, there would be no nominated lead actress performance in a best picture nominee, given the consensus.

Also, only one other actor has ever been Oscar-snubbed after landing the NYFCC/LAFCA/NSFC trifecta: Bill Murray for "Rushmore."

So at least Sally's in good company.

Seriously, I'm so furious about that snub. Apart from being the year's best performance, nominating her would have brought so much more light and shade to the Best Actress race. As it is, it's all a little heavy-going.

Obviously this is proof that the critics awards don't always guarantee a nomination. The simple fact is that neither voting body that overlaps with the Academy nominated her. People who vote for the Oscars didn't like her all season, so why would they start after she gave an awkward Globe speech?

Look at the amount of competition this year; look at all the star vehicles and the amount of buzz Melissa Leo was able to generate for Frozen River. Look at Scott Thomas, who managed to get in at the BAFTA's over Hawkins, and Blanchett who was in a powerful Best Picture contender.

The fact of the matter is, it was a tough year, and Hawkins failed to impress the voting circles that have direct impact on the AMPAS, for an atypical performance that a lot of people obviously didn't really "get." I was predicting her, too, but I'm certainly not shocked. I had her in 5th, with Leo trailing behind.

And as for those other women who managed to make it in with all of those wins, look at Julie Christie last year. She became the first BFCA-Globe-SAG winner to lose the Oscar. Shit happens. "Rules" are exposed as coincidences all the time.

Those other women didn't get in BECAUSE of their many critics awards. They got in because they convinced Academy members they were deserving. Hawkins didn't do that part, which trumps everything.

Nathaniel, really funny post and I'm sorry one of your favorites didn't get her well-deserved Oscar nomination I guess the Academy couldn't resist throwing a wrench into the plot. Personally I don't really see Angelina Jolie's nomination as THAT deserving... I mean she was way better last year in A Mighty Heart. Hey look on the bright side though at least now Kate Winslet is going to win *fingers crossed*. BTW the site/blog are both awesome and I am continually loving your creative output, keep up the awesome job!!

I know word has it that most Oscar voters don’t care much about the critics input… but then how does one explain nominations for Bruce Davidson, Emily Watson (“Breaking the Waves”), Marcia Gay Harden (“Pollock”), William Hurt (“Violence”), Jackie Earle Haley and Shohreh Aghdashloo???

While Hawkin’s SAG/ BAFTA snubs were a red flag, deep down I truly believed AMPAS would be unable to ignore the winner of the top three most prestigious critics awards.

The only explanation I can come up with is… comedy bias. Just like genre-bias robbed THE DARK KNIGHT of its expected/deserved Best Picture nomination. It’s truly disheartening that they’d overlook such a beautiful performance just because it lacked life-or-death drama; had that homeless guy rapped “Poppy”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now would we.

This is why I get irritated at people who bitch about there being too many award groups/ critics awards not being as important. It’s because of them that when future cinephiles look back to see the most honored performances of 2008, Sally Hawkins will receive her due recognition.

Anonymous, my thoughts exactly. I hate this idea of entitlement that comes from people who win precursors. The fact is, actors didn't like her - not even British actors! The same people who criticize the Academy for being too mechanical and following precursors exactly are bitching when one fringe nomination didn't play out as planned.

It's totally conceivable that Winslet was ahead of Hawkins for The Reader all along. Which means that it was Melissa Leo who took her spot, for what I consider to be a much stronger performance. Is it so terrible that Hawkins didn't get in at the expense of Leo? Hell no.

The AMPAS called out Winslet's category fraud and nominated her for her better performance. They recognized a small-film early-bird performance from an unknown, mature actress. Just because they didn't have ANOTHER Mike Leigh orgasm doesn't mean the Best Actress category isn't a pleasant surprise.

I just don't understand what you guys would have preferred. In my opinion, Hathaway, Winslet, and Leo are all deserving nominees. Streep wasn't amazing, but was there ever a chance she wasn't getting in? Jolie had a stronger case for a nomination than Hawkins did.

Basically, I wouldn't trade Melissa Leo's nomination for Hawkins if someone held me at gunpoint.

Hayden... well, please let's not pull out the guns! Oscar nominations are not life & death. even if they feel ike it at times to us crazies ;)

I LOVE the Melissa Leo nomination but to me it's just craziness that people are trying to pretend that what Hawkins did isn't prize worthy. and it's craziness to mean that someone always gets blamed for someone else's exclusion but the real culprits never get blamed.

like people blaming The Reader for DARK KNIGHT or WALL-E's miss. I like WALL-E better than any of the nominees, too, but why take it out on the Reader which at least is trying to do something interesting? why not direct the vitriol at lazy gets like Frost/Nixon? fun, sure... but what else is it? Not the pinnacle of an artform.

I liked it. way more than Slumdog or some others but it should not be in a Best list. It's a pleasant diverting two hours with fun acting.

BLARGH.

why do oscar nominations mean so much to me when they make me so f'in crazy each year?

wait, don't answer that.

I am more and more convinced each year that nobody actually watches movies. they just vote for people they like or ideas that they can get behind. It explains so much.

I too felt like shit when I heard she was snubbed (she TOTALLY deserved this award), but weren't we supposed to learn something from that "Happy-go-lucky" movie? How much time and energy do you thing Poppy would've spent grieving something that is, in the greater order of things, irrelevant? So, now that our bike's been stolen, are we going to sit and bitch endlessly about it, or are we going to rejoice for what the future holds for Ms. Hawkins*, and for all the wonderful, brilliant performances by marvelous actresses we got to see all year round**?

*that is, of course, unless that bright future fails to materialise BECAUSE she missed on this nod (gulp... not likely, though)

Sally Hawkins wasn't a fucking "fringe" nominee. There have been plenty of critics' winners that have gone on to become Oscar juggernauts. Someone that won the big three plus a Globes win shouldn't have been struggling for a nomination the way that she did. Yes, voters liked something else better, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that I have to respect that decision in any capacity.

I don't get the animosity directed at "The Reader" either, or at least, the animosity that involves it being blamed for "The Dark Knight" missing the top five. I just feel very blah about this best picture race that the semi-surprise inclusion of "The Reader" felt like a breath of fresh air. Plus, I liked it. The "Frost/Nixon" vitriol is something I'm not feeling so much either, though it is a throwaway placeholder that could be given to something more deserving. It's this year's "Finding Neverland." Just close your eyes and pretend it's not there. It's hard to get too angry or excited about anything in this race when it's going to be Slumdog or Button anyway. It feels like 2004 all over again. My favorite nominated film isn't going to win anyway and my favorite film period isn't even nominated so who cares?

"Benjamin Button's" nomination annoys me the most, honestly. I get that it's been a lock for some time, but that still bugs me. I feel like if there are two films this year that should have fallen off best picture radar as soon as people saw them, they are "Australia" and "Benjamin Button" I sincerely don't get why anyone would LOVE "Benjamin Button." I don't know anyone who loves it. Someone seriously explain it to my satisfaction. What's going on? Who has taken over Sasha Stone's body? Where are the fans of this movie? Bring it.

agreed. i didn't love it while watching it but kinda admired it or thought it was pretty and now i don't even care at all. Remarkably fast fade for me and Fincher's worst movie maybe (save only The Game)

I was looking back at your predictions in the category for years gone by the other day actually, and there does seem to be a pattern with certain years. When they've got people throwing names at them from every angle it seems they kinda revert to type.

I know it's a combination of things that gets you in but it does seem that the critics awards don't really generate that much buzz on their own. Melissa Leo's performance is good but it's as much about the role than the performance for me. If Poppy had had a miscarriage in the film, or something like that, I think Hawkins might have made it. It sounds cynical but there's a maternal thing going on there amongst this year's contenders (Streep and the kids, Jolie and her incessant "Where is my son?" conversation, Leo's fight for her two boys, Scott-Thomas' dead son secret) that suggests if you're willing to be a "traditional" female, i.e. not a progressive, childless 30-something free spirit as Poppy is, you're gonna have a better chance.

i like your website, nathaniel. it is a joy to read, but somehow your obvious bias towards certain actors do not sit well with me. how can someone who only sees the negative in hilary swank can ever be objective with his reviews?

what exactly is your credentials to be credible? from what i have read so far, all i can say is that you are biased.

I am dissapointed in the Hawkins omission, but I had been preparing myself for it. I considered Meryl, Anne, and Angelina to be safe bets, and I thought they would nominate Kate for either of her performances. That left one spot open, and I had the feeling Melissa would get it after the SAG nom.

Despite this setback, I am still happy that so many critics' recognized her stellar performance, and I hope it has secured her more opportunities.

we can't have what we want all the time, don't you think? i really wanted hawkins to be there instead of jolie. i also wanted di caprio instead of pitt and franco instead of hoffmann. but then again, that's how the academy voted and no matter how we rant and rave can ever change that. i guess at this point on we should talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the nominated films and actors. ten years from now will anyone actually care that hawkins was bypassed?

unbelievable!!! sally being left out?!!!....this proves something about the oscars: if your movie isn't full of "serious" themes, or is a comedy(no matter how good), or is based on a comic/graphic novel(dark knight,anyone)...you're bound to be left out of the 5 main nominees....what a shame!!! no wonder their ratings are at an all time low!!!!!!!

HA. i love it when the Oscar only readers come trolling to ask me how i get off being so biased?

it's as inevitable as taxes and Woody Allen's annual movie.

newsflash people: everyone is biased. It seems to be another word for "having an opinion" It's the #1 insult on the web and it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. seriously. how does that remain a word with any currency?

Only people who don't watch a lot of movies or don't care about cinema have no preconceived notions about which actors they respect the most and which they don't value that much. I'm just willing to admit which is which.

The next time I see a Meryl Streep movie, guess what? I'll go into it loving Meryl Streep (in my top five actresses of all time) but feeling like it'll probably be better than her work in Doubt or Mamma Mia! (both of which i thought were fun but not great performances) and guess what? I'm sure you do things like this, too! There's nothing wrong with it. We do not live in vacuums.

Towelie - Boy, do I agree with you. I love this blog, and everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I hated, hated, hated HGL. People who worship Sally Hawkins' performance must not know, it seems to me, any truly happy people. Guffawing and snorting does not happiness make. S.H. was unconvincing - came across far more dim-witted than happy - and the movie was painful. I was a fan of Mike Leigh back in the days of SECRETS & LIES, but this movie was dreadful, and Sally Hawkins was rightfully left out of this race.

As for bias, I 100% agree with Nathaniel R's response. And kudos to him for always keeping his cool.

Meh. The question is WHY didn't the actors like Sally Hawkins. Why did the writers go for it, but not the actors. Is it simply because she's not a known quantity? Doubtful: this group went for Janet McTeer over Sigourney Weaver in 1999, Moreno over Thurman/Kidman/Roberts in 2004, Castle-Hughes over Kidman in 2003.

I think it's the biggest snub of the year, in all honesty. Bigger then "The Wrestler" song snub.

It seems like a big snub, but really, she didn't have BFCA, BAFTA, SAG, or GG drama. She had next to no precursor support outside of the critics. It's less and less shocking the more I step back and think about it.

Good for the critics for keeping the pressure on and rallying, but the main thing this proves is that the academy will do what it wants, no matter what the critics think.

The LAFCA/NYFCC/NSFC/GLOBES combo should have meant something, and before someone trots out Bill Murray for "Rushmore", that was in supporting actor, not lead. That should have overtaken Melissa Leo, who really only managed a Spirit nomination and had her screener out a longer amount of time. That sounds like I'm discrediting the performance, but if the wins mean something for some nominees, it should mean the same for the rest.

And people who have genuinely responded to Sally Hawkins' performance must be stupid or duped by it b/c they don't know "real" happy people in real-life or how they act? For christsakes, how f'ing reductive is that?

I think we all know whose performance Sally should be nominated over and it's not Melissa Leo, Anne Hathaway, Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet. At least we know Dustin Hoffman voted for her!

I now know how many felt when Paul Giamatti got snbbed for Sideways. I was elated but others thought it was a "miscarriage of justice" or whatever. Hawkins' snub is just terrible. Over the past two weeks I had decided that she was my favourite performance of the year and now to see it vanish on Oscar day is tragic (in the melodramatic Oscar kind of way not in a holocaust world war kind of way). Also similar to Peter Sarsgaard who won critic prize after critic prize after critic prize for Shattered Glass and then nada.

And I agree the vitriol shouldn't necessarily be going towards The Reader, which had passionate fans since it's release whereas Frost/Nixon had but mere polite approval.

Does The Reader beat Letters from iwo Jima as the best picture nominee with the lowest gross at time of announcement? I know it's at around the $2.5mil mark.

Ok, this is getting annoying- Just because something doesn't get nominated, doesn't mean that the Academy didn't like it. A lot of snubs happen because of the preferential voting system- maybe Hawkins got a lot of 2nd place votes, and not enough 1's? Ideally, of course, there should be a "round two" phase of voting, similar to the way that the critics do it, minus the compromises (i.e. Waltz with Bashir). Round two as in letting everyone see results after they've made their initial picks, and then having them make final decisions after seeing primary results. Too convoluted and unrealistic probably, but at least it would really show what people thought was "best".

Or if the votes are really close, they should do honorable mentions to the ones who almost get nominations.

I've gotta say, that while it has it's supporters, I've read a fair share of people who feel it's morally bankrupt on every level. Especially if what I've heard about her final decision is true. For comparison, Frost/Nixon is at 91% at rotten tomatoes and has a score of 80 at metacritic. The Reader is 60% and 58 at metacritic. You cannot tell me that it's anything other then the least acclaimed film of the category. That's like saying Frieda Pinto deserves an oscar nomination more than Rosemarie DeWitt.

cal -- i thought Poppy was annoying at times too, but why shouldn't she be? Some of the best scenes in the movie spring from the idea that not everyone can cotton to her character and outlook... or suspect she's a dimwit. it's all about perception.

In no conception was "The Reader" somehow better received or liked than "Frost/Nixon" was. Box office they're the same, but "Frost/Nixon" had the far better reviews and unanimous guild acceptance. I think a lot of that indifference comes from who directed it, but Ron Howard pulled off a winner here, and I know I'd pick "Frost/Nixon" over nonsense like "The Reader" any day of the week.

Don't feel so bad about this: my top pick in each of the six major categories didn't get in: Gran Torino for Picture, Leigh for Director, Hawkins for Actress, Eastwood for Actor, Rosemarie DeWitt for Supporting Actress, Marsen for Supporting Actor. Now my head is spinning trying to figure out who or what I'm supporting.

That's not true. Now that Winslet is nominated for the correct performance (in the correct category), that's an easy pick.

I agree - Bravo to you Nathaniel for handling the bias issue so charmingly.

I also agree that Poppy was supposed to annoying and that is one of the reasons I am such a fan of the performance. I mean, talking about unique, challenging characterizations. When I think of how many actresses would have spent the movie trying to get the audience to love her...well, brava to Ms. Hawkins!

i can't really understand this Sally Hawkins snubbing thing.since the awards season been started there was one common saying for best actress race : this year's race one of the most crowded and competitive of all time : kate winsletx2,meryl streep,cate blanchett,k.scott thomas,angelina jolie,sally hawkins,melissa leo,anne hathaway,michelle williams and even kate beckinsale...There is only five spots.All of these actresses performances are better or worse from each other? i think not.they are all award deserving performances.if i pick one of them i say kristin scott thomas performace in i've loved you long. but no matter.fair enough.and congrats to academy cause of not dropping for winslet fraud.

Personally I think the noms this year is very predictable and boring, more so than last year. And the quality of the films are really not that high. However, Happy-Go-Lucky is my favourite film of the year, plus Hawkins gives one of the most multi-dimensional performance this year. Plus the movie lifts up your spirit:)that's why the snubs are really infuriating. Well done you lousy academy people!

cineastin -- it's true of course. it was just a really crowded race this year...

that might be the problem with ignoring rich stuff in BP too. if the academy has too much good stuff to choose from they sometimes retreat into old habits. Witness the the semi-horrific nominations in 1999 and then think back on how great the pool of films was.

Oh, and Hawkins will totally have a Jeremy Irons/Angelina situation going on. Irons was snubbed for Dead Ringers and then nominated (and won) for the lesser Reversal of Fortune a year later. Angelina was snubbed for A Mighty Heart and nominated a year later for the lesser Changeling. And I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there.

"this group went for Janet McTeer over Sigourney Weaver in 1999, Moreno over Thurman/Kidman/Roberts in 2004, Castle-Hughes over Kidman in 2003."

But Arkaan, if I remember, all of those actresses received SAG Nominations in their respective years and their performance were more "Oscarish". And Bruce Davinson actually has the overdue factor and he was the biggest winner of 1991 with a ISA and Golden Globe.

Sally Hawkins snub is like Jane Horrocks, sorry but I think that kind of roles didn't like to the AMPAS